[progdvd]

Will do so. Still mids are too recessed for my liking...
Sub and mid bass is fantastic so I'm not giving up on it yet.

 

[Ichos]

Mids recessed and veiled?
I find them just a touch behind with excellent layering and clarity.
The opposite of veiled.
Very engaging and full sounding.

 

[progdvd]

Mids recessed and veiled?
I find them just a touch behind with excellent layering and clarity.
The opposite of veiled.
Very engaging and full sounding.

I'm coming from S8F, where mids are more elevated richer and clearer sounding.

 

[Bitsir]

Mids recessed and veiled?
I find them just a touch behind with excellent layering and clarity.
The opposite of veiled.
Very engaging and full sounding.

I don't know what to tell you if you think the mids aren't recessed here. It's been called V shaped by reputable reviewers and V shaped inherently means recessed mids.

It's not engaging me emotionally, it lacks that each out and touch quality that I value so much.

 

[RikudouGoku]

I don't know what to tell you if you think the mids aren't recessed here. It's been called V shaped by reputable reviewers and V shaped inherently means recessed mids.

It's not engaging me emotionally, it lacks that each out and touch quality that I value so much.

It could be V-shaped to some depending on what volume level you are using it at thanks to the fletcher munson curve. But for me, it is U-shaped and does not have recessed mids, it doesnt have forward mids either just in the middle.

 

[progdvd]

Depends how you interpret it and where you're coming from. I'm just saying FD5 lacks clarity in the mids compared to the stuff I'm used to. While this may work for some genres I just cannot unhear it.
I left them on burn-in rig and I will check them in few days time.

 

[Ichos]

I don't know what to tell you if you think the mids aren't recessed here. It's been called V shaped by reputable reviewers and V shaped inherently means recessed mids.

It's not engaging me emotionally, it lacks that each out and touch quality that I value so much.

Allow me to consider myself a good reviewer although not a reputable one because I don't run a YouTube channel.
Although I am a senior reviewer for one of the oldest HiFi magazines of Europe.

It is not a V shaped presentation because mids are not recessed.
They are just not forward as you might like them.

Other than that and about emotional engagement or if you like it or not this is purely subjective so I can't comment.

Clarity thought it is not disputable at all.
It is crystal clear and well detailed.

This
https://tidal.com/track/166511143
Sounds very good and emotional to me.
Tonality and timbre are great although the singer could be let's say half of a meter more forward.

 

[Ace Bee]

My Fiio FD5 finally arrived today as well. Very good sound out of the box. Tremendous bass, soundstage and detail, including in the treble. There is a smoothness and effortlessness to it that is just impressive (I listen mostly to jazz, acoustic and orchestral genres).

I was a bit afraid due to some less positive opinions in this thread, but I don't hear any harshness in treble or upper mids, nor do I think there are missing low mid details, texture or bite, which is something someone mentioned as well, though they might be a tad leaner in the low mids.

I will probably just listen to them while they burnin, but I can't think of any aspect that needs a major improvement.

The conundrum now is that they arrived just a week after my LZ A7, another amazing earphone, so my attention split...

A comparison between them?

 

[Ichos]

Depends how you interpret it and where you're coming from. I'm just saying FD5 lacks clarity in the mids compared to the stuff I'm used to. While this may work for some genres I just cannot unhear it.
I left them on burn-in rig and I will check them in few days time.

First part of a review must be as objective as it can.
A reviewer must also think how other people might like it or not.
And not how he likes it.
If I like my mids more forward or not that can be left for later.
I like my Empyrean but that doesn't mean that I will review let's say the Ananda with the Empyrean sound at the back of my mind.

 

[progdvd]

First part of a review must be as objective as it can.
A reviewer must also think how other people might like it or not.
And not how he likes it.
If I like my mids more forward or not that can be left for later.
I like my Empyrean but that doesn't mean that I will review let's say the Ananda with the Empyrean sound at the back of my mind.

Let's see what happens after burn in period. My initial listen was 10 min out of the box, it's way too early for me to draw conclusions.

 

[Ichos]

That's true.
You should also try the vocal ear tips.

 

[Dsnuts]

The FD5 is a complicated earphone. I am guilty of listening to stuff out of the box. I mean who wouldnt right? But if I based my judgement on out of the box sound I would have gotten rid of most of my IEMs and probably not happy with any of them.

FD5 does require burn in. It is finicky of sources, It is finicky of tips, it is finicky of cables. Some earphones are easy as far as plug n play goes, FD5 is not easy.

If your coming from a hyper clear all BA set up. Ya they arent gonna sound like that. If your coming from more neutral tuned sound the FD5 is gonna have a lot of bass and is gonna sound colored to you. ( News flash, earphones are all tuned differently)

After a good amount of burn in. It took me a while in trial and error to nail down the sound from the FD5 I was looking for. It does take a bit of an effort even more so than most IEMs. Look at it as a puzzle you gotta solve. Try this and try that. They are worth the effort, they just need a bit more attention than most IEMs thats all.

Synergy is a real thing with the FD5. Your quest, if your up to the challenge, is to find that synergy.

 

[Ichos]

I have enjoyed it from the first minutes.
I don't find it finicky but I would say transparent.
While I am enjoying it greatly from entry level sources , it does scale insanely good and it will do justice to high end stuff.
I am using the balanced tips and I think that timbre is just great.
As for the bass it is as it should be according to the Fletcher and Munson loudness curve.
Spot on.

PS - I have used more than ten different sources and I enjoyed it with all of them.

 

[davidmolliere]

First part of a review must be as objective as it can. A reviewer must also think how other people might like it or not.
And not how he likes it. If I like my mids more forward or not that can be left for later. I like my Empyrean but that doesn't mean that I will review let's say the Ananda with the Empyrean sound at the back of my mind.

That's not the way I see it.
There is no such thing as objectivity as we humans are not computers

From the signal to the brain a lot of things come into play.
I love this acoustics lecture from Final Audio, every audiophile should read it from end to end it's pretty interesting, it's just a small introductory fraction of it :

The study then goes very far into hearing mechanism and perception of sound from speakers to headphones to earphones.
Anyway, just to say objectivity is an illusion. Even FR graphs are just a part of what explains the final SQ, despite what some objectivists might think it's thankfully much more complex and rich (although FR is very important but it's not the end word).

This being said, objectivity being an illusion doesn't mean one can't try to be as honest and informative as possible.
First thing and you're right about this, a reviewer must know inside out is his own preferences and not mistake them for what will sound better to others.

One thing I am always trying to do when reviewing is either verify the tuning intent of the manufacturer (when it's explicit which is not always the case) or figure it out (easier when tuning is coherent and consistent) and check that it has been well executed. Judging an IEM by your own preferences is the wrong way to do things IMHO and I am very very suspicious of extreme opinions there. It might grow your website to say X or Y is trash (like tabloids sell a lot, same logic), it's rarely the case at least in the mid to upper tier and even in the lower tier it's fairly rare that any given headphone or IEM is pure trash. It can have major faults and if it has several then it's not recommended but usually it's not that clear cut, and there are nuances.

I might like one tuning better than the other but it's irrelevant to the readers indeed. What is relevant is everything I can write that can help a reader figure out what an IEM signature is and if it fits one reader's preference. When I talk about signature I have a hard time categorizing into L, V, W shaped categorization really useful as it relates to FR graph alone and there are so many things that matter like attack/decay, texture, speed.... so I am trying to be as multi-dimensional as possible. Then there are performance aspect that are a bit more objective like resolution, staging, extension and even then we don't always hear the same thing because of different ears, sources, tips, etc. Also one rarely discussed item is listening volume. I noticed in meetups we had diverging opinion on some IEMs with the same source, cables, tips and we just listened at different volumes. I pushed it beyond my (generally lower) listening volume and there it was, I got the point of my fellow audiophile about upper mids harshness! That why now when I review I always try at volumes that are not my own say 20% lower but more importantly 20% or even 30% louder on short times as I generally listen 10 to 20% lower than the average.

That's why reviewing is not easy when taken seriously that's for sure... but no matter how hard you put your mind to it, it will never be "objective". Nobody owns the truth, I certainly don't

 

[Ichos]

Objective by the meaning that the reviewer must think that what he dislikes other people might like and vice versa.

Unless something is really bad implemented and designed then there is room for everything.